[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 134 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10045-H10053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2004

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 5382) to promote the development of the emerging 
commercial human space flight industry, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5382

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Space Launch 
     Amendments Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Findings and Purposes.--Section 70101 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``human space 
     flight,'' after ``microgravity research,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (A) by striking ``satellite''; and
       (B) by striking ``services now available from'' and 
     inserting ``capabilities of'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (4) in subsection (a)(9), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (5) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(10) the goal of safely opening space to the American 
     people and their private commercial, scientific, and cultural 
     enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies, 
     and regulations;
       ``(11) private industry has begun to develop commercial 
     launch vehicles capable of carrying human beings into space 
     and greater private investment in these efforts will 
     stimulate the Nation's commercial space transportation 
     industry as a whole;
       ``(12) space transportation is inherently risky, and the 
     future of the commercial human space flight industry will 
     depend on its ability to continually improve its safety 
     performance;
       ``(13) a critical area of responsibility for the Department 
     of Transportation is to regulate the operations and safety of 
     the emerging commercial human space flight industry;
       ``(14) the public interest is served by creating a clear 
     legal, regulatory, and safety regime for commercial human 
     space flight; and
       ``(15) the regulatory standards governing human space 
     flight must evolve as the industry matures so that 
     regulations neither stifle technology development nor expose 
     crew or space flight participants to avoidable risks as the 
     public comes to expect greater safety for crew and space 
     flight participants from the industry.'';
       (6) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) promoting the continuous improvement of the safety of 
     launch vehicles designed to carry humans, including through 
     the issuance of regulations, to the extent permitted by this 
     chapter;''; and
       (7) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``issue and 
     transfer'' and inserting ``issue permits and commercial 
     licenses and transfer''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 70102 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (17) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), 
     (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (21), and (22), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) `crew' means any employee of a licensee or 
     transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee 
     or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that 
     employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other 
     operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that 
     carries human beings.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, by inserting ``, crew, or space flight 
     participant'' after ``any payload'';
       (4) in paragraph (6)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by striking ``and payload'' and 
     inserting ``, payload, crew (including crew training), or 
     space flight participant'';
       (5) in paragraph (8)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by inserting ``or human beings'' 
     after ``place a payload'';
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (10), as so redesignated 
     by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) except in section 70104(c), `permit' means an 
     experimental permit issued under section 70105a.'';
       (7) in paragraph (13), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, by inserting ``crew, or space flight 
     participants,'' after ``and its payload,'';
       (8) in paragraph (14)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by striking ``and its payload'' 
     inserting ``and payload, crew (including crew training), or 
     space flight participant'';
       (9) by inserting after paragraph (16), as so redesignated 
     by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(17) `space flight participant' means an individual, who 
     is not crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry 
     vehicle.'';
       (10) by inserting after paragraph (18), as so redesignated 
     by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(19) unless and until regulations take effect under 
     section 70120(c)(2), `suborbital rocket' means a vehicle, 
     rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on 
     a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater 
     than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion 
     of its ascent.
       ``(20) `suborbital trajectory' means the intentional flight 
     path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion 
     thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not 
     leave the surface of the Earth.''; and
       (11) in paragraph (21), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) crew or space flight participants.''.
       (c) Commercial Human Space Flight.--(1) Section 70103(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, 
     including those involving space flight participants'' after 
     ``private sector''.
       (2) Section 70103 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), 
     and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Safety.--In carrying out the responsibilities under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall encourage, facilitate, 
     and promote the continuous improvement of the safety of 
     launch vehicles designed to carry humans, and the Secretary 
     may, consistent with this chapter, promulgate regulations to 
     carry out this subsection.''.
       (3) Section 70104(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``License Requirement.--A license issued or 
     transferred under this chapter'' and inserting 
     ``Requirement.--A license issued or transferred under this 
     chapter, or a permit,''; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding this subsection, a permit shall not 
     authorize a person to operate a launch site or reentry 
     site.''.
       (4) Section 70104(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``holder of a 
     license''.
       (5) Section 70104 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Single License or Permit.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall ensure that only 1 license or permit is 
     required from the Department of Transportation to conduct 
     activities involving crew or space flight participants, 
     including launch and reentry, for which a license or permit 
     is required under this chapter. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that all Department of Transportation regulations relevant to 
     the licensed or permitted activity are satisfied.''.
       (6) Section 70105(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a license is not 
     issued'' and inserting ``the Secretary has not taken action 
     on a license application''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(including approval 
     procedures for the purpose of protecting the health and 
     safety of crews and space flight participants, to the extent 
     permitted by subsections (b) and (c))'' after ``or 
     personnel''.
       (7) Section 70105(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for a license''.
       (8) Section 70105(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``an additional requirement necessary 
     to protect'' and inserting ``any additional requirement 
     necessary to protect''.
       (9) Section 70105(b)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for a license''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end thereof.
       (10) Section 70105(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 
     (E) and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) additional license requirements, for a launch vehicle 
     carrying a human being for compensation or hire, necessary to 
     protect the health and safety of crew or space flight 
     participants, only if such requirements are imposed pursuant 
     to final regulations issued in accordance with subsection 
     (c); and''.
       (11) Section 70105(b)(2)(E) of title 49, United States 
     Code, as so redesignated by paragraph (11) of this 
     subsection, is amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for 
     a license''.
       (12) Section 70105(b)(3) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Secretary may not grant a waiver under this paragraph that 
     would permit the launch or reentry of a launch vehicle or a 
     reentry vehicle without a license or permit if a human being 
     will be on board.''.
       (13) Section 70105(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

[[Page H10046]]

       ``(4) The holder of a license or a permit under this 
     chapter may launch or reenter crew only if--
       ``(A) the crew has received training and has satisfied 
     medical or other standards specified in the license or permit 
     in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
       ``(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any 
     individual serving as crew in writing, prior to executing any 
     contract or other arrangement to employ that individual (or, 
     in the case of an individual already employed as of the date 
     of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 
     2004, as early as possible, but in any event prior to any 
     launch in which the individual will participate as crew), 
     that the United States Government has not certified the 
     launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight 
     participants; and
       ``(C) the holder of the license or permit and crew have 
     complied with all requirements of the laws of the United 
     States that apply to crew.
       ``(5) The holder of a license or a permit under this 
     chapter may launch or reenter a space flight participant only 
     if--
       ``(A) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary, the holder of the license or permit has informed 
     the space flight participant in writing about the risks of 
     the launch and reentry, including the safety record of the 
     launch or reentry vehicle type, and the Secretary has 
     informed the space flight participant in writing of any 
     relevant information related to risk or probable loss during 
     each phase of flight gathered by the Secretary in making the 
     determination required by section 70112(a)(2) and (c);
       ``(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any 
     space flight participant in writing, prior to receiving any 
     compensation from that space flight participant or (in the 
     case of a space flight participant not providing 
     compensation) otherwise concluding any agreement to fly that 
     space flight participant, that the United States Government 
     has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying 
     crew or space flight participants;
       ``(C) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary, the space flight participant has provided written 
     informed consent to participate in the launch and reentry and 
     written certification of compliance with any regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (6)(A); and
       ``(D) the holder of the license or permit has complied with 
     any regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to 
     paragraph (6).
       ``(6)(A) The Secretary may issue regulations requiring 
     space flight participants to undergo an appropriate physical 
     examination prior to a launch or reentry under this chapter. 
     This subparagraph shall cease to be in effect three years 
     after the date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch 
     Amendments Act of 2004.
       ``(B) The Secretary may issue additional regulations 
     setting reasonable requirements for space flight 
     participants, including medical and training requirements. 
     Such regulations shall not be effective before the expiration 
     of 3 years after the date of enactment of the Commercial 
     Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.''.
       (14) Section 70105 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), 
     and by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Safety Regulations.--(1) The Secretary may issue 
     regulations governing the design or operation of a launch 
     vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space 
     flight participants.
       ``(2) Regulations issued under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) describe how such regulations would be applied when 
     the Secretary is determining whether to issue a license under 
     this chapter;
       ``(B) apply only to launches in which a vehicle will be 
     carrying a human being for compensation or hire;
       ``(C) be limited to restricting or prohibiting design 
     features or operating practices that--
       ``(i) have resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as 
     defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to 
     crew or space flight participants during a licensed or 
     permitted commercial human space flight; or
       ``(ii) contributed to an unplanned event or series of 
     events during a licensed or permitted commercial human space 
     flight that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal 
     injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 
     10, 2004) to crew or space flight participants; and
       ``(D) be issued with a description of the instance or 
     instances when the design feature or operating practice being 
     restricted or prohibited contributed to a result or event 
     described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(3) Beginning 8 years after the date of enactment of the 
     Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the Secretary 
     may propose regulations under this subsection without regard 
     to paragraph (2)(C) and (D). Any such regulations shall take 
     into consideration the evolving standards of safety in the 
     commercial space flight industry.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the authority of the Secretary to issue requirements or 
     regulations to protect the public health and safety, safety 
     of property, national security interests, and foreign policy 
     interests of the United States.''.
       (15) Section 70105(d) of title 49, United States Code, as 
     so redesignated by paragraph (15) of this subsection, is 
     amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``of a license''.
       (16) Chapter 701 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 70105 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 70105a. Experimental permits

       ``(a) A person may apply to the Secretary of Transportation 
     for an experimental permit under this section in the form and 
     manner the Secretary prescribes. Consistent with the 
     protection of the public health and safety, safety of 
     property, and national security and foreign policy interests 
     of the United States, the Secretary, not later than 120 days 
     after receiving an application pursuant to this section, 
     shall issue a permit if the Secretary decides in writing that 
     the applicant complies, and will continue to comply, with 
     this chapter and regulations prescribed under this chapter. 
     The Secretary shall inform the applicant of any pending issue 
     and action required to resolve the issue if the Secretary has 
     not made a decision not later than 90 days after receiving an 
     application. The Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written 
     notice not later than 15 days after any occurrence when the 
     Secretary has failed to act on a permit within the deadline 
     established by this section.
       ``(b) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     establish procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, 
     reentry vehicles, safety systems, processes, services, or 
     personnel that may be used in conducting commercial space 
     launch or reentry activities pursuant to a permit.
       ``(c) In order to encourage the development of a commercial 
     space flight industry, the Secretary may when issuing permits 
     use the authority granted under section 70105(b)(2)(C).
       ``(d) The Secretary may issue a permit only for reusable 
     suborbital rockets that will be launched or reentered solely 
     for--
       ``(1) research and development to test new design concepts, 
     new equipment, or new operating techniques;
       ``(2) showing compliance with requirements as part of the 
     process for obtaining a license under this chapter; or
       ``(3) crew training prior to obtaining a license for a 
     launch or reentry using the design of the rocket for which 
     the permit would be issued.
       ``(e) Permits issued under this section shall--
       ``(1) authorize an unlimited number of launches and 
     reentries for a particular suborbital rocket design for the 
     uses described in subsection (d); and
       ``(2) specify the type of modifications that may be made to 
     the suborbital rocket without changing the design to an 
     extent that would invalidate the permit.
       ``(f) Permits shall not be transferable.
       ``(g) A permit may not be issued for, and a permit that has 
     already been issued shall cease to be valid for, a particular 
     design for a reusable suborbital rocket after a license has 
     been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket of that 
     design.
       ``(h) No person may operate a reusable suborbital rocket 
     under a permit for carrying any property or human being for 
     compensation or hire.
       ``(i) For the purposes of sections 70106, 70107, 70108, 
     70109, 70110, 70112, 70115, 70116, 70117, and 70121 of this 
     chapter--
       ``(1) a permit shall be considered a license;
       ``(2) the holder of a permit shall be considered a 
     licensee;
       ``(3) a vehicle operating under a permit shall be 
     considered to be licensed; and
       ``(4) the issuance of a permit shall be considered 
     licensing.

     This subsection shall not be construed to allow the transfer 
     of a permit.''.
       (17) Section 70106(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``at a site used for crew or space flight 
     participant training,'' after ``assemble a launch vehicle or 
     reentry vehicle,''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 70104(c)'' and inserting 
     ``sections 70104(c), 70105, and 70105a''.
       (18) Section 70107(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``On the initiative''; and
       (B) by adding the following new paragraph at the end:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall modify a license issued or 
     transferred under this chapter whenever a modification is 
     needed for the license to be in conformity with a regulation 
     that was issued pursuant to section 70105(c) after the 
     issuance of the license. This paragraph shall not apply to 
     permits.''.
       (19) Section 70107 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 
     subsections (e) and (f), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Additional Suspensions.--(1) The Secretary may 
     suspend a license when a previous launch or reentry under the 
     license has resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as defined 
     in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to crew or 
     space flight participants and the Secretary has determined 
     that continued operations under the license are likely to 
     cause additional serious or fatal injury (as defined in 49 
     CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to crew or space 
     flight participants.
       ``(2) Any suspension imposed under this subsection shall be 
     for as brief a period as possible and, in any event, shall 
     cease when the Secretary--

[[Page H10047]]

       ``(A) has determined that the licensee has taken sufficient 
     steps to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the serious 
     or fatal injury; or
       ``(B) has modified the license pursuant to subsection (b) 
     to sufficiently reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the 
     serious or fatal injury.
       ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to permits.''.
       (20) Section 70110(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``or 70105a'' after ``70105(a)''.
       (21) Section 70112(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``crew, space flight participants,'' after 
     ``transferee, contractors, subcontractors,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or by space flight participants,'' after 
     ``its own employees''.
       (22) Section 70113(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``but not against a space flight 
     participant,'' after ``subcontractor of a customer,''.
       (23) Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following: ``This section 
     does not apply to permits.''.
       (24) Section 70115(b)(1)(D)(i) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``crew or space flight 
     participant training site,'' after ``site of a launch vehicle 
     or reentry vehicle,''.
       (25) Section 70120 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(c) Amendments.--(1) Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments 
     Act of 2004, the Secretary shall publish proposed regulations 
     to carry out that Act, including regulations relating to 
     crew, space flight participants, and permits for launch or 
     reentry of reusable suborbital rockets. Not later than 18 
     months after such date of enactment, the Secretary shall 
     issue final regulations.
       ``(2)(A) Starting 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the 
     Secretary may issue final regulations changing the definition 
     of suborbital rocket under this chapter. No such regulation 
     may take effect until 180 days after the Secretary has 
     submitted the regulation to the Congress.
       ``(B) The Secretary may issue regulations under this 
     paragraph only if the Secretary has determined that the 
     definition in section 70102 does not describe, or will not 
     continue to describe, all appropriate vehicles and only those 
     vehicles. In making that determination, the Secretary shall 
     take into account the evolving nature of the commercial space 
     launch industry.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--(1) Licenses for the launch or 
     reentry of launch vehicles or reentry vehicles with human 
     beings on board and permits may be issued by the Secretary 
     prior to the issuance of the regulations described in 
     subsection (c).
       ``(2) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the 
     Secretary shall issue guidelines or advisory circulars to 
     guide the implementation of that Act until regulations are 
     issued.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no licenses 
     for the launch or reentry of launch vehicles or reentry 
     vehicles with human beings on board or permits may be issued 
     starting three years after the date of enactment of the 
     Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 unless the 
     final regulations described in subsection (c) have been 
     issued.''.
       (26) The table of sections for chapter 701 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to 70105 the following new item:

``70105a. Experimental permits.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDIES.

       (a) Risk Sharing.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     enter into an arrangement with a nonprofit entity for the 
     conduct of an independent comprehensive study of the 
     liability risk sharing regime in the United States for 
     commercial space transportation under section 70113 of title 
     49, United States Code. To ensure that Congress has a full 
     analysis of the liability risk sharing regime, the study 
     shall assess methods by which the current system could be 
     eliminated, including an estimate of the time required to 
     implement each of the methods assessed. The study shall 
     assess whether any alternative steps would be needed to 
     maintain a viable and competitive United States space 
     transportation industry if the current regime were 
     eliminated. In conducting the assessment under this 
     subsection, input from commercial space transportation 
     insurance experts shall be sought. The study also shall 
     examine liability risk sharing in other nations with 
     commercial launch capability and evaluate the direct and 
     indirect impact that ending this regime would have on the 
     competitiveness of the United States commercial space launch 
     industry in relation to foreign commercial launch providers 
     and on United States assured access to space.
       (b) Safety.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall enter into an 
     arrangement with a nonprofit entity for a report analyzing 
     safety issues related to launching human beings into space. 
     In designing the study, the Secretary should take into 
     account any recommendations from the Commercial Space 
     Transportation Advisory Committee and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's Aerospace Safety 
     Advisory Panel. The report shall be submitted to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Science within 4 years 
     of the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall 
     analyze and make recommendations about--
       (1) the standards of safety and concepts of operation that 
     should guide the regulation of human space flight and whether 
     the standard of safety should vary by class or type of 
     vehicle, the purpose of flight, or other considerations;
       (2) the effectiveness of the commercial licensing and 
     permitting regime under chapter 701 of title 49, United 
     States Code, particularly in ensuring the safety of the 
     public and of crew and space flight participants during 
     launch, in-space transit, orbit, and reentry, and whether any 
     changes are needed to that chapter;
       (3) whether there is a need for commercial ground 
     operations for commercial space flight, including provision 
     of launch support, launch and reentry control, mission 
     control, range operations, and communications and telemetry 
     operations through all phases of flight, and if such 
     operations developed, whether and how they should be 
     regulated;
       (4) whether expendable and reusable launch and reentry 
     vehicles should be regulated differently from each other, and 
     whether either of those vehicles should be regulated 
     differently when carrying human beings;
       (5) whether the Federal Government should separate the 
     promotion of human space flight from the regulation of such 
     activity;
       (6) how third parties could be used to evaluate the 
     qualification and acceptance of new human space flight 
     vehicles prior to their operation;
       (7) how nongovernment experts could participate more fully 
     in setting standards and developing regulations concerning 
     human space flight safety; and
       (8) whether the Federal Government should regulate the 
     extent of foreign ownership or control of human space flight 
     companies operating or incorporated in the United States.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 102(c) of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 is 
     repealed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lampson) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas if he is opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) 
opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
will control 20 minutes in opposition to the bill.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate someone who is 
spending his last day on the floor as an activist for America's space 
program. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) has been a tremendous 
asset in our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. He exemplifies the 
spirit of activism and the support team for our astronauts and what 
they have needed in order to be successful. I appreciate his support of 
this amendment today, knowing that we both have worked on this, along 
with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and it has been purely 
a bipartisan effort. We have had many, many hearings on this bill, and 
today is a culmination of his career and, I might add, it is a 
culmination of my career as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, as this is one of my last actions as chairman to be here 
before us today.
  The bill we speak about, H.R. 5382, the Commercial Space Launch 
Amendments Act of 2004, represents a long and thorough process and also 
a solid bipartisan effort to make commercial human space flight a 
reality. Earlier this year, H.R. 3752 passed this House by a vote of 
402 to 1. Thus, there is nothing to any charge to suggest that there 
has been anything but pure, that

[[Page H10048]]

this bill has been operating purely in the open and with open 
discussion and with the input from both sides of the aisle.
  That bill's central premise that passed by 402 to 1 was that, after 
being informed of the risks, that people can and should be able to 
decide to buy a ticket and achieve their lifelong dream of flying into 
space, even though they know that it is a risky proposition.
  The House Committee on Science has worked diligently with the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to craft an even 
more balanced, compromised bill which is being considered today, a bill 
that actually has more controls and more, one might say, safety in it 
than the first bill did, even though the central premise still is that 
people have a right and, especially in a developing industry, it is 
important to have that type of citizen input which would give them the 
right to waive certain safety requirements they would not waive in time 
when we are dealing with advanced technology and technology that has 
already been commercialized.
  We thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, 
for helping craft this legislation in the Senate that will ensure that 
this new industry grows and matures, rather than is strangled in its 
crib by overregulation. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, I can think of no better way to end my tenure than to see 
H.R. 5382 become law.
  During my 8 years as chairman, I had the privilege to peer into the 
future to see dynamic citizen astronauts returning to and from the 
heavens which we can expect in the future. American entrepreneur Dennis 
Tito ignored the screaming agony of our own space bureaucracy to show 
the world that space will not be restricted simply to a chosen few. 
Burt Rutan's tremendous accomplishment last month caught the attention 
of the world and underscores the innovative and creative potential of 
space entrepreneurs.
  It is my sincere hope that H.R. 5382 will encourage a new breed of 
private sector astronauts to continue leading the way in pushing the 
boundaries of technology and safety by building and testing earth-to-
space vehicles. This fine piece of legislation carries forward my goal 
of eliminating and reducing the possibility of some arbitrary 
redirection or restructuring or abandonment of promising new space 
endeavors for lack of an enabling regulatory regime or a bureaucracy 
that wants to protect industry's rights until they are dead and can no 
longer function.
  H.R. 5382 promotes development of an emerging commercial human space 
flight industry by putting in place a clear and balanced regulatory 
regime.
  Let me add, my colleagues are going to hear today that there is not 
enough regulation in here to protect the consumer, but if this bill 
goes down, there will be no regulation to protect the consumer. A vote 
of no is a vote in favor of eliminating all of the regulatory safety 
precautions that were put in during negotiations with the Senate.
  This bill is drafted as an amendment to the existing Space Commercial 
Launch Act to minimize disruption and confusion. The bill assigns the 
Secretary of Transportation jurisdiction over commercial human space 
flight and requires the Secretary to streamline the certification 
process for experimental suborbital reusable space launch vehicles. 
This approach will make it easier to develop new types of space launch 
vehicles.
  The bill also addresses qualifications for crew and space flight 
participants.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and, as I say, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for this tremendous bipartisan 
effort that we have had, a purely open effort that has been open to any 
type of input all along. Until now, we have not had any objections 
except here at the last minute.
  I also want to thank the FAA, the House and Senate staff for helping 
develop H.R. 52382. Their hard work and dedication stands as a shining 
example of America's cooperative, can-do spirit. Because of the 
tremendous efforts of all of those involved, H.R. 5382 ensures that 
regulatory barriers will not hinder the growth of this emerging 
industry, will not force this industry to go overseas, rather than 
provide the jobs here and the development of technology here.
  This is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. To vote against it is 
a vote to strangle this baby in its crib. It is a vote to make sure 
that industry develops overseas instead of here. It is a vote for no 
regulation instead of reasonable regulation.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting this bill, H.R. 5382.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a most extraordinary process here. The 
chairman of the subcommittee just now said, at the last minute, now we 
are confronted with proposals for regulation. Well, at the last minute, 
we have this bill before us. If the gentleman were concerned, Mr. 
Speaker, about including those who are concerned about safety in 
flight, the Members on this side of the aisle would have been included 
much earlier on in this process. The bill was not even introduced until 
yesterday. We did not have a copy of an introduced bill to look at 
until yesterday afternoon or evening. That is not the way we work on 
our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We at least include 
both parties in discussions.
  Now, I want my colleagues to understand the language of this bill. On 
page 13, line 17: ``Safety regulations. The Secretary may issue 
regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to 
protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants.'' 
But, ``Regulations issued under this subsection shall be limited to 
restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that 
have resulted in a serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight 
participants.''
  Is the gentleman going to include on the space flight ticket the 
disclaimer there has been no safety provided until after you are dead?
  Our committee colleague of some years ago, Mr. Molinari of New York, 
the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight at the time when I was chairing hearings and we looked into 
FAA safety practices, he described FAA's procedure at the time as a 
tombstone mentality. They act only after there is a fatality.
  I do not want to see people dead from a space experiment and then the 
Federal Government comes in to regulate.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in the legislation, the gentleman asks 
whether or not someone should be able to sign off, and the legislation 
clearly states that someone will have to sign off, knowing that, the 
risk that he is taking.
  I might also ask, the gentleman just read a section of the bill 
talking about when regulation would be justified. But on line 12 of the 
very same page that the gentleman was reading from, it suggests that 
they may come in even if there is a risk. There does not have to be a 
fatality. There just has to be a risk.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This has been going on for 2 years. This has been a bill that we have 
worked on, and the people on the Committee on Science and the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on both sides of the aisle have 
struggled with this for 2 years. During that entire time, we were 
always open to any type of discussion. We were in contact with the 
Committee on Transportation.
  Also, let me add, talking about it not being last minute, this bill 
passed the House in March of 2004, months and months ago, by 402 to 1. 
At that time, if there were any problems with the bill, we would have 
been more than happy, in fact, we were more than happy to try to 
renegotiate the bill, which we did in the Senate, and Senator Hollings 
raised some of the objections of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

[[Page H10049]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully say to the chairman, 
our side was never included, never advised, and when the bill passed 
the House in March of this year, it did not have any reference of this 
nature to safety.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  This part of the bill, actually, the House voted on a bill that did 
not contain as much safety regulation as this bill does, and no one on 
that side of the aisle opposed it then. Now, after we have included 
safety provisions by Mr. Hollings' consideration, now it is objected 
to.
  Let me note, if this bill goes down, there will be no safety 
regulations. So a vote no is a vote for no safety regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the full Committee 
on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this bill, which is the result of 
laborious and painstaking bipartisan negotiations between our committee 
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the other 
body.
  This bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the need to give 
a new industry a chance to develop brand-new technology and the desire 
to provide enough regulation to protect the industry's customers.

                              {time}  1415

  We think we have struck that balance and here is why. First, the bill 
gives the Federal Aviation Administration clear authority for the first 
time to regulate the commercial human space flight industry.
  Second, the bill gives the FAA unlimited authority to regulate the 
industry and its rockets to make sure they do no harm to third parties, 
that is, people on the ground or in the air who are in no way involved 
with the flight.
  Third, the bill sets a clear timetable for when FAA will have 
unlimited authority to regulate the industry and its rockets to make 
sure they do no harm to the people on board.
  But here is what the bill does not do. It does not allow the FAA 
right now to guess whether some new untested rocket technology will do 
harm to the people onboard. Why? Because this industry is at the stage 
when it is the preserve of visionaries and daredevils and adventurers. 
These are people who will fly at their own risk to try out new 
technologies. These are people who do not expect and should not expect 
to be protected by the government. Such protection would only stifle 
innovation.
  So instead of allowing FAA guesswork for the next several years, the 
bill requires that anyone participating in launch, whether it is crew 
or passenger, must be notified of all risk of flight and must be told 
explicitly that the government has not certified the vehicle as safe 
for crew or passengers. And the FAA can come in and prohibit rocket 
designs and operational procedures that have already been shown to 
fail.
  Now, obviously, this Wild West or barnstorming or infant industry 
state of affairs cannot obtain forever, if the commercial space flight 
industry is to become more than an expensive and risky novelty. Safety 
must increase, and gradually the industry will start to look more like 
a common carrier. And that is why the bill allows FAA after 8 years to 
regulate commercial space flight in pretty much the same way it 
regulates the airline industry. But it seems to me kind of silly to 
regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle, which has flown three times, as if it 
was a Boeing 747. If we regulate it that way, then his craft will never 
evolve into the equivalent of a 747.
  So we have a balanced bill that will enable the commercial space 
flight industry to experiment, and that will encourage the industry to 
constantly improve its record of safety, so that within a relatively 
short time, its technology will mature and customer base will grow to 
the point that more regulation is warranted.
  I want to thank our outgoing subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for keeping after all of us on this 
bill. He has been tenacious. I also want to salute the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for his leadership and perseverance. 
I want to thank also the chairman of our other committee, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, for discharging this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this sensible, 
balanced bill which will facilitate the development of a new industry 
that will expand the horizons of all Americans.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.
     Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5382 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and 
     of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional 
     interest will be included in the Congressional Record.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your decision to support 
     H.R. 5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 
     2004. Your Committee has valid jurisdictional interests in 
     the bill as drafted.
       I recognize that by forgoing a referral in this instance, 
     your Committee does not waive any rights involving provisions 
     within your Committee's jurisdiction. Per your request, I 
     will include copies of this exchange of letters in the 
     Congressional Record during debate on the House Floor.
       I will continue to work with you to define the respective 
     jurisdiction of our Committees over this bill.
       Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                             Sherwood L. Boehlert,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently 
seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do 
want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this 
legislation.
  I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to 
paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the 
serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here 
in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the 
industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems 
to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days 
the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the 
industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and 
through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the 
industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted 
it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident 
that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be 
paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and 
safety.
  But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone 
mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing 
to say, here is someone who invented something or built something and 
they are going to try and fly it at their own risk here or here is a 
professional person who is going to try to fly something that was built 
by this person, fully knowing the risk; but it is another thing to 
begin to say paying passengers will fall under the same aegis in this 
bill.

[[Page H10050]]

  This was not considered by the Subcommittee on Aviation in any form 
over the last 2 years. It was never referenced to the Subcommittee on 
Aviation over the last 2 years. There may have been some communication 
somewhere with some member of the staff or between some member of that 
committee and some member of our committee, but not the Subcommittee on 
Aviation who has jurisdiction over these matters.
  So I would suggest that there is not an immediate crisis. There is no 
reason that this bill must be rushed through today in this form. It 
could well be passed next year. The liability provisions exist 
elsewhere and would be continued elsewhere, and then we could have a 
more thorough discussion of when it would be appropriate to begin to 
regulate for the health and safety of passengers on these space crafts, 
that is, I think something that is not wise to codify today because it 
took us from 1932 or 1933 until 1996 to remove that provision in 
regards to the FAA, 64 years or so that that carried over.
  Even though it was long after the time when the industry needed 
promotion or the FAA should be conflicting itself with promoting the 
industry, they were still doing that. And people died because of that. 
And it may not be in the next year or two, but 8 years is a pretty long 
time to say we are going to go 8 years before there could be any 
regulation regarding paying passengers.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that the same level of that same criteria 
that the gentleman is talking about was in place when airplanes 
themselves were developing; but we would have had that same level of 
progress in the development of aviation. Does the gentleman not believe 
if we had the same level of regulation then that we have now would have 
just stifled all sorts of creativity at a time when people knew they 
were taking risks?
  My father, I remember when he told me he got in on a plane that flew 
in on a dirt road and they charged $5 to get on this plane. It was an 
old World War I SPAT or something. It excited him so much about being 
able to participate, and because of that we had a whole new industry 
created because of that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, here we would be looking at 
presumably much wealthier people paying gigabucks to have the 
experience. But still I think the point is that it is not necessary to 
attract entrepreneurs. There are already entrepreneurs out there 
experimenting. There are professional pilots out there willing to fly 
these crafts. But to take the next step and say to paying passengers 
who may or may not be a very knowledgeable and wealthy person or 
someone of lesser means would be subjected to those risks without any 
regulation. It just does not seem necessary to promote this industry at 
this point in time.
  It is already moving forward. The liability exemption I believe is 
the key. But to say that if they are going to go to paying passengers, 
they could not be regulated, I think that is kind of a bright line 
where we could draw a line and agree.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  People who are spending $200,000 or $100,000 to go into space, they 
are responsible enough to make a decision as to whether or not to take 
the risk, rather than having the government trying to say there will be 
no such people, and thus that contribution, that amount of money that 
would be available to developing new craft will no longer be available.
  The rich people around the world would like to spend $100,000 or 
$200,000. That could help us develop new types of space craft rather 
than relying on the government and the taxpayer to come up with all the 
loot in developing new crafts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson), a real activist on our committee and who will be sorely 
missed, who, I might add, has championed a space agenda much of which 
was incorporated into the President's own space agenda later on. He 
will be sorely missed.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher). It has been a pleasure working with him and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and on the Committee on Science and on the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Actually, it has been a 
tremendous pleasure working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as 
well.
  These things, hopefully, will be able, these concerns, will be able 
to be addressed if this makes it back into the next session of 
Congress.
  I do want to speak in support of H.R. 5382, a bill to promote the 
development of the emerging commercial human space flight industry.
  I was an original co-sponsor of an earlier version of this bill, H.R. 
3752, which passed earlier this year and we have already heard spoken 
about.
  While the idea of a commercial human space flight industry might have 
seemed like science fiction, like a science fiction dream even a few 
years ago, the recent successful flights of Burt Rutan's Spaceship One 
show that the dream may be truly moving toward reality.
  So the basic purpose of H.R. 5382 is to establish a framework for 
regulating the emerging commercial human space flight industry. The 
Committee on Science has heard ample testimony that such a framework is 
needed if the companies are to make their plans and attract needed 
investment capital. At the same time, Congress needs to ensure that 
safety is protected as this new industry emerges.
  One of the challenges in developing this legislation has been in 
striking an appropriate balance between encouraging innovation and 
providing sufficient safety regulation of this emerging industry. In 
that regard, our discussions with the Senate have led to language that 
clarifies that we care about both the growth of new industry and the 
protection of the crews and the passengers of these new vehicles.
  Mr. Speaker, when we debated the original version of this bill on the 
floor earlier this year, I agreed with those who believed that there 
were still some areas that could be improved on. While there are always 
further improvements that can be made, I think that our subsequent 
discussions with the Senate have led to a solid piece of legislation.
  I think that the legislation before us represents the most feasible 
compromise possible in this session of Congress. If it makes it into 
the next session of Congress for discussion again, I hope that we will 
work in as bipartisan a manner as we possibly can so we can address all 
of the concerns of all of our Members so it will be moved forward to 
provide a good framework for regulation.
  I want to commend, again, my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher), for his persistence and initiative on this issue. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5382.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, greatly regret the departure from this body of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who has been a great Member of 
this people's body and who among many other issues in which he has 
distinguished himself has led the cause of missing and exploited 
children, a cause that reaches throughout this great land and is a 
great tribute to his very noble personal character, a genuine concern 
for those who have been taken against their will, children exploited, 
tortured and killed.
  The gentleman will have a legacy from this body that will not be 
surpassed in that arena. I thank the gentleman for his great 
contribution.
  I listened with great interest to the concern of the gentleman, 
chairman of the subcommittee, ``that this industry will be strangled in 
its crib by overregulation,'' to the chair of the full committee who 
said, ``Protection would stifle innovation,'' who said, ``It would be 
silly to regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle.'' I do not think safety 
regulation is ever silly.

                              {time}  1430

  I do not think we have ever overregulated safety.

[[Page H10051]]

  For the record, I just want to state the language that had we been 
given the opportunity to present we would have submitted, which is very 
simply, on page 14 of the bill before us delete lines 4 to page 15, 
line 7, replace with the following: Prescribe minimum standards 
necessary for safety of design featuers and operation of a launched 
vehicle, taking into account the inherently risky nature of human space 
flight.
  That is not a straitjacket. That is not strangling in its crib. That 
is not language that I would, in any way, associate myself with for 
commercial aviation. But in this era of uncertain exploration of space 
for commercial purposes and carrying passengers, not scientists and 
astronauts, I think we could put that language in, taking into account 
the inherently risky nature of space flight. It gives a great deal of 
latitude in the early regulatory period of this commercial space launch 
activity. That is not protecting, as the gentleman called it, the 
Chairman, protecting industry until they are dead.
  On the contrary, I propose to put in place a regulatory framework of 
at least a minimal stature to protect people before they are dead. That 
is the issue.
  I had a discussion pursuant to the request of the chairman of the 
full committee and chairman of the subcommittee with the advocates for 
this technology, the representative of Xcor company and their attorney 
representing the company here in Washington, and their concern was FAA 
might not have the technology skills to deal with new materials, new 
engines, new power plants, a new class of vehicle. They would be 
groping around with this new class of vehicle and would not think 
creatively.
  Oh, my goodness. After all, the FAA is under the jurisdiction of this 
administration, and if they are not thinking creatively, I think we 
would have some ability to encourage them to do so.
  Secondly, the FAA, with a regulatory safety framework in place, 
approved the entry into service and development of the new jet aircraft 
in 1958, within a regulatory framework. Jet aviation did not stifle, 
was not strangled in its crib by overregulation.
  When technology brought new materials, composites to be used in tail 
sections and wing sections, FAA did not strangle that new technology in 
its crib but nurtured it along in a safe manner so that it could be 
safely deployed.
  When a general aviation aircraft manufacturer who is located in 
Minnesota proposed an all-composite general aviation aircraft that had 
never been attempted before, this regulatory framework of safety worked 
with this company, and in 5-years that aircraft was certificated, 
built, flying, and Cirrus Aviation is now the largest general aviation 
aircraft manufacturer in the world. They were not strangled in their 
crib. They were not suffocated, and no passenger has died because of a 
safety framework put in place.
  We do not propose to strangle industry but rather to protect the 
public.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to reflect on the compromise language he talked about, 
and, again, since we have not gone through a regular legislative 
process here, since our committee had no opportunity to review this and 
it is not amendable on the floor and they would not accept that in good 
faith, let me point to an unintended effect here.
  The way the bill is written, they are granting a blanket exemption to 
the industry, including paying passengers, until such a point as there 
is a serious injury or death, and then the full scope of the FAA's 
current regulations would come to bear.
  What the gentleman is proposing here would essentially sanction the 
experimentation with lighter touch regulation at the outset, and I 
think that that might actually get us further down this road than what 
is being proposed here. But the unwillingness of the other side to even 
consider the implications of extending this to passengers and then 
whether or not that ever gets sunset or it takes some Member of 
Congress half a century from now to get that stripped from law, because 
you know it is 8 years in this bill, but then I can see it being 
extended and extended and extended and becoming a mature industry, just 
as the aviation industry did, with that provision still in place, until 
there is a horrible tragedy.
  So I think having this light touch regulation for public interest and 
safety at the outset, given the expertise of the FAA, would be 
preferable to all concerned, and it would not stifle or strangle the 
industry in its nature.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have been suggesting over 
and over again that the FAA will be restricted from any regulation 
unless someone has died, and I believe that is an inaccurate reading of 
this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the 
bill is limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or 
operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal injury.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in the 
paragraph right after that says ``or'' at the end of the paragraph the 
gentleman is reading, or contributed to an unplanned event or series of 
events after licensed or permitted commercial human space flight that 
posed a high risk concerning a serious fatality.
  What that means is that if there is a chance, if there is something 
to indicate----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman will suspend. The 
gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) time has expired. There are 4 
minutes remaining for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and 
there are 5 minutes remaining for the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to finish this 
point.
  Obviously, the gentleman is reading one paragraph, but the very next 
paragraph negates the criticism of the bill, and that is the very next 
paragraph underneath the one he is reading suggests that if there is a 
reason for the FAA to be concerned, if there is a flaw that can be 
pointed out, then it may step in to prevent a fatality or a serious 
accident.
  The question is whether the FAA and the bureaucracy should be able to 
control the design of a new space launch vehicle before there are any 
problems. Should then the space launch bureaucrats, the people who are 
in government, who are in public service override the entrepreneur, 
overside the scientist, override the experts and should they be in the 
pilot seat even if there is no indication that there is any problem 
with the design?
  Now I think that would strangle the baby in the crib. In fact, it 
would destroy this fledgling industry and send it overseas.
  What we are talking about is an aerospace industry that needs all the 
help it can get being limited from anybody paying for a flight and then 
sending their job overseas. That makes no sense at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let us read further. After the language in the bill that says 
regulation shall be limited to restricting or prohibiting design 
features or operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal 
injury to crew or space flight participants, it goes on to say, or 
contributed to an unplanned event or series of events. There is a whole 
series of conditions after this, but it is still subject to the first 
language that says you have got to die first, serious fatal accident, 
and I do not agree with what the gentleman is saying, that this is 
going to strangle.
  First of all, we have time to come back next year in due course, in 
careful, thoughtful deliberation, in public hearings to expose this 
issue, have a discussion of it and report a bill back to the House with 
the appropriate safeguards and appropriately designate it the 
Rohrabacher space commercial space amendments bill so that the 
gentleman's parentage will be protected, but we should not have that 
parentage associated with fatalities.
  Why would the gentleman object? Why would the gentleman not have 
discussed with us the safety issues when it

[[Page H10052]]

is the jurisdiction of this committee, and we do have some experience 
and expertise with it, give us appropriate time during this very rushed 
period?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the bill was referred to the Committee 
on Science and referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. 
We have spent 2 years of hard work on this. It was common knowledge in 
this body that this bill was in this committee. It was referred to us 
officially. It even came for a vote on the floor so that between that 
time we could have negotiated.
  But let me note, before the bill passed on the floor there were two 
public hearings, a policy roundtable with the experts from all over the 
country and 6 months to negotiate.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Let us 
take a look at what this bill will do and what is going to happen if it 
is voted down.
  If this bill is voted down, we are told to vote this bill down 
because there is not enough regulation in the bill, regulatory power 
given to the FAA in the bill to protect the public. Well, there is 
protection in the bill, and there would be no protection, zero 
protection, if this bill goes down.
  Voting against this bill will also expose the Federal Government to 
liability for licensed launches. All of a sudden, we have a situation 
where it is not a question of whether or not we are going to have 
something a year or 2 from now, after some magical time period, after 
working on this 2 years, if it is just brought back next year, after a 
short period of time, the problems will be solved. We are going to go 
through a time period when we basically have zero protection, and the 
Federal Government will be totally exposed to liability claims.
  This bill will basically convince people who want to create this new 
industry, the space launch industry, that they should not do it in the 
United States of America. They will go overseas. This will strangle the 
industry in the cradle, as I said over and over again, and it will 
force these people to launch their rockets and build them overseas.
  I would say that this bill actually prevents the government from 
regulating passenger safety, and this bill will go, yes, maybe not all 
the way we want, but we can come back in the next few years and add 
what we want. But, right now, to kill this bill would be totally going 
in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Again, we could move forward with the liability exemptions absent 
this language, and the gentleman says that that would then mean that 
there would be a more dangerous situation prevailing, or is he perhaps 
saying we would not do the liability at all? Is that what he is saying, 
we would do nothing? Why not just move forward the liabilities, absent 
these provisions and these exclusions in the current legislation?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if I might add, because it puts the 
government and it puts the bureaucracy in the control of the project, 
rather than the designer, the entrepreneur and the scientist.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, how did we get to this point? If the 
government is so in control, how did they have this first flight if the 
government is overregulating and overcontrolling them?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would further yield, that is what 
happens when we give the government the right to say yes or no to 
people who are making new designs on technology.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if we just extended the 
existing liability exemptions and we were silent on these other issues, 
how would that be different than the circumstances which led to these 
first flights?

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the full Committee on Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that the House 
passed earlier this year, by a vote of 402 to 1, an earlier version of 
this bill that gave the FAA less regulatory authority over commercial 
human space flight than does the bill before us today. Without this 
bill, the FAA will continue to license private space flights without 
adequate authority to protect either the safety of the public or the 
finances of the government. Please support H.R. 5382, just as you voted 
for the initial version back in March.
  Today's bill is the equivalent of a conference report, as it reflects 
bipartisan negotiations within this body and with the other body. This 
is good legislation; let us move it forward. Let us not stifle it. Let 
us not take the position of the equivalent of not letting the Wright 
Brothers test their ideas without first convincing Federal officials 
that nothing could go wrong.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time in 
recognition that the other side has the right to close.
  Yes, this bill was considered by the House earlier this year, but 
without this language; without any reference to safety and without any 
consideration.
  And I disagree that there is no protection if this language were 
stricken. Under current law, and I am familiar with the commercial 
space flight activities of DOT and FAA, under current law, the DOT must 
issue a license to launch; and in the process of issuing that license 
to launch can insist on safety regulations if it takes an assertive 
stance and is concerned about safety of flight for experimental 
personnel and for commercial passengers.
  But, again, I come back to our very modest proposal of language that, 
had we been included in the discussions that have been going on between 
the Committee on Science in the other body, if our side would have been 
included, we would have proposed language to prescribe minimum 
standards necessary for safety of design features and operation of a 
launch vehicle, taking into account the inherently risky nature of 
human space flight.
  We can defeat this bill and come back later tonight with an amended 
version and fix it, or come back in the next Congress and do it right. 
Let us not do tombstone safety.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the opposition to this bill is coming from a 
fundamental misunderstanding of what the bill actually is all about, 
and there is some argument to say that Members, that the gentleman's 
committee was not engaged in this bill and, thus, he is upset about 
that and such and, thus, you do not understand it.
  The fact is this bill is very clear. The staff of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure was always available to look at what 
we were doing. This was an open process. We have had negotiations on 
both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) played important roles in 
developing this, as have all the Democrats on our committee. This has 
been a totally bipartisan effort.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is a misread that we are hearing today. We 
are hearing that the opposition comes from the fact that, well, the FAA 
can already regulate. That is a total misreading of what their FAA 
regulations are. The FAA can only regulate in terms of the safety of 
people who are not on that craft, meaning the safety

[[Page H10053]]

of the people on the ground. They cannot regulate based on the safety 
of people on the craft. That is what this is all about.
  We want to develop spacecraft that people can ride on. And if we have 
the bureaucrats being able to control that, it will put a stranglehold 
on those people trying to develop these craft. It is fundamentally 
different than what the FAA has now with airplanes.
  And, also, we have heard a total misreading of the bill again and 
again that there is no right in here for there to be regulation unless 
there has already been a fatality. That is not the case.
  I urge Members to vote for this legislation. Do not strangle this 
industry and drive these entrepreneurs offshore. Create the jobs here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5382.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________